Swinging force and handle length

[Zeraph]

For instance, why does a sledgehammer have a handle about 4ft long? Why not 5 or 6ft? 6ft might be more unwieldy but wouldn't it technically produce more power? This goes the same for axes and such. They all seem to have about the same handle length, and I'm wondering how they came to that conclusion.

Is it force? Is it efficiency? Speed? More work done?

[dlish]

im assuming that you never took an engineering course because this would be covered in Engineering 101.

it would be efficiency. someone would have worked out that the weight with the handle at that length would be the most efficient for most people to use.

ill try and explain it in simple terms.

hold a 20kg weight to your chest.

now hold that 20kg weight with outstretched arms.

which is harder to do? obviously the one with the outstretched arms, right?

now try it by holding a 2m plank and with the 20kg weight at the end of it. you're most probably not going to be able to hold it up.

ill probably let someone like TK or BadNick explain the engineering aspect of it,but in simple terms the formula is:

Force x length

the shorter the length the less the moment. the longer the length the greater the moment and the harder to hold it up.

hope this helps...now ill let the real engineers explain it!

[Zeraph]

Yeah, that seems pretty obvious now. Thanks for reminding me.

I wonder how heavy 2handed hammers and axes were for combat?

[Zeraph]

hmm I figured out I need to think/know about Torque.

[yournamehere]

Well, it also has to do with diminishing returns. What good is an 8 ft long sledgehammer if you miss the target 9 out of 10 times? By the 10th try, you'd be too tired to swing it.

It's the same reason golf clubs aren't 10 feet long. Sure, a ball would go 400 yards if you hit the sweet spot, but it would probably take 20-30 swings before you could even hit the ball.